I would argue that due to the irrationalities of each capitalist attempting to realize his commodity capital against his rivals in generally stagnant conditions, there is such an increase the ratio of unproductive to productive labor that not only is there ever greater impetus to raise the rate of exploitation towards miserable heights (which then increases the capitalist need for more unproductive supervisory labor), the success in so raising the rate of exploitation, which requires massive reorganisations of the productive system, does not raise the profit sufficiently to spur the rate of accumulation anyway, giving rise to ever higher levels of absolute misery. This general stagnation can be overcome for some time by debt at all levels; single countries like the US can even benefit for some time by world slump conditions. Ultimately however the only real answer capital has is a direct rise in the rate of exploitation as well as declines in the unprod/prod ratio which can be accomplished by wage attacks and rationalisation (i.e., unemployment) in the unprod sectors. This provides the working class with an objective unity in relation to the employing class.
It should not be forgotten that while the prod/unprod distinction may be used for several purposes in the kind of promiscuous realism suggested by Roger, it is not meant in Marx's framework to be used 1. to determine who is a member of the working class, which includes unproductive and mental laborers (see Carchedi) 2. to determine what labor is capitalistically necessary (unprod labor is necessary for the realisation of surplus value and the supervising of the labor force, for example). 3. a determination of which labor we would encourage in a post capitalist society (some presently productive labor would not be continued while much presently unproductive labor would flourish).
All the best, Rakesh
>The point you are missing is precisely a political one, the same Marxian
>categories that you find profoundly useful loose all meaning and political
>content if they are identified with conventional accounts. Take, for
>example, the work of Glyn and Sutcliffe in England during the 70's-80's.
>These well intentioned leftist economists believe that you can tell a
>Marxist story by using conventional accounts. They observed that the
>English economy was stagnat due to a fall in the rate of profit(r). They
>defined r as total profits/capital advanced, p/k which can also be
>expressed as r=(p/y)/(k/y) where p/y is the profit to wage ratio (the
>profit share) and k/y the capital-output ratio. Since they observed that
>k/y was constant and the p/y ratio was falling, they attributed the fall
>in the rate of profit to what they called a profit-squeeze by labor.
>According to their story, the English labor movement was so strong that it
>was able to squeeze profits, re-distributing income toward!
>!
>s wages creating a fall in the profit share (p/w). The rate of exploition
>or the rate of surplus value (identified with the conventional account
>p/w) was therefore declining due to the strenght of the labor movement. In
>other words, the growth of the real wage was outpacing the growth of
>productivity (which implies that capitalist firms continue hiring workers
>althought they are loosing money, something that can only take place in
>the minds of economists). This was a great pro-labor leftist political
>story, strong labor kicking capitalist ass and signaling a new stage of
>capitalism, but the only problem was that about the same time M. Tatcher
>took over and destroyed most of labor's institutions.
>Well intentioned but errouneous theory with wacky accounts defeates its
>ownself.
>
>What was wrong with their story?
>Looking at the same period using Marxian accounts (like Shaikh/Tonak) it
>shows that the rate of surplus value increased throughout the period, ie.
>productive workers were exploited at an increasing rate. The political
>story that follows is therefore one that instead of reflecting wishful
>thinking, reflects a crude and consistent reality, the increasing
>exploitation of the working class. Of course that these theory do not
>lead to nice political slogans or utopian dreams but provides you with a
>more realistic insight into the working of system.
>
>So making the distinction between prod/unprod. labor does count from a
>political point of view. One version says that the labor movement is
>incredily strong because it sees a falling profit share ratio. Its
>political message works great for conservative economists who rush to
>recommend contractionary policies to avoid inflation.
>The other version doesn't get anybody in office and offers an ugly picture
>of capitalism where workers continue to be exploited. The political
>implication is simply that you better get busy organizing workers or
>things will continue getting worse.
>
>So there you have your political stories, you choose.
>
>Fabian
>
>
>Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com